

| Subject: | Re: Friday moderation discussion - Handovers |
| From: | David Beierl |
| Date: | Sat, 26 Mar 2011 20:36:24 -0400 |
Speaking as a listmember... At 02:00 PM 3/25/2011, Marius Strom wrote: >I think this is difficult, if not impossible, to manage. Ultimately, >the guy (or gal) who owns the mailing list configuration is in >charge here. Using the examples you outlined below, say I disagree >with your moderation style and want to recall you. You, as a >moderator, have the ability to preclude me from discussing or >kicking off a recall attempt. So, a moderator has the ability to >prevent their own recall, which defeats the purpose of a recall >process. I'd say that if we're at a point where we've got 5 people >disagreeing with a moderator enough to ask them to no longer be a >moderator, I think we have a broader issue. Leaving aside for now the question of particular methods - USAA as an insurance company has (intentionally) an easy time of it because they select for a population with overall good ethics. My suggestions are all based on the belief that we have a group of people here who care for the list rather than for power. And you're right about the owner of the mailing list configuration. Happens that right now it's not either of the moderators, but that doesn't change your point. However the suggestions I've made have to do with providing a framework for a voluntary exercise, a gentlemen's agreement if you will. As I said, more or less - if we're not gentlemen, why are we here? The question has been raised by a former member, are we too big, or too old, to survive? Actually it was phrased, approximately, "Every such organization I've ever belonged to has begun as mostly a social outfit and been taken over by gearheads. This one has lasted a lot longer than any of the others." For context, that former member is Unca Joel. He left...dunno, six months ago maybe? I'm not good with time. Yours, David
Have something to add on this topic today? Revive this thread in the forum »